[003]
66Scorpio
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
A decent article but it runs into definitional problems within the first few paragraphs. Atheism, is \
to:
A decent article but it runs into definitional problems within the first few paragraphs. Atheism, is \\\"literally\\\" and not \\\"broadly\\\" defined as a lack of belief in gods. The catch phrase \\\"a lack of belief\\\" has its own bit of intellectual mischief as some people try to improperly blur the difference between the passive from the active, ambivalence and choice. Similarly, there is a difference between knowing, not knowing and not caring, but that is not given a balanced consideration.
Someone who \\\"knows\\\" or \\\"believes\\\" that there is no God and no gods is definitely an atheist proper. Those who don\\\'t know are - literally - agnostic. Those who don\\\'t care are not merely atheistic, but aphilosophical or ametaphysical, and to claim to care about philosophical questions while not caring about the question of god is simply inconsistent or incoherent. \\\"Weak atheism\\\" is effectively agnosticism.
As a matter of pure semantics, many atheists are in fact agnostics as are many people that self-described atheists describe, in turn, as atheists. \\\"Implicit atheists\\\" is used but the more proper term is \\\"Inferred Atheists\\\" because babies and space aliens can\\\'t imply anything if they have no knowledge of the concept under consideration; observers infer it from their behaviour. Oddly, inferential reasoning is not much appreciated in some circles.
On a more practical level - more \\\"broadly\\\" speaking - the literal definition of atheism is not that instructive because, as pointed out, Buddhists and other religious groups meet that literal definition, but no reasonable person would describe them as atheists, nor would they describe themselves as such.
The reality is that most self-described atheists are metaphysical naturalists and by the definitions of their own world view, there can be no \\\"gods\\\".
Where the paradox and cognitive dissonance comes up is that \\\'\\\'procedural\\\'\\\' naturalism \\\'\\\'assumes\\\'\\\' that there is only the material world and only natural explanations for all observed phenomena. That is the basis of science, and it has worked out pretty good overall. The difference is that \\\'\\\'metaphysical\\\'\\\' naturalism is not merely an assumption, but a \\\'\\\'belief\\\'\\\' that science can explain everything; and consequently, anything not explained scientifically is either wrong or irrelevant.
The thing is, the existence of God is not a scientific proposition but rather a metaphysical proposition, the truth of which can neither be proved or disproved by imperical inquiry. Science has nothing to say on the existence of God, although a lack of scientific proof is what many atheists (Ricky Gervais recently) cite as their reason. That is not, strictly, logical.
Either you believe there is a god or you believe there is no god. If you have no belief, you are more properly an agnostic, not an atheist. Similarly, people who don\\\'t care are not atheists. Religious beliefs that do not include gods are not atheistic in any practical sense. It has been pointed out that atheism is not a religion, but then those people who obviously form a religion can\\\'t be called atheists.
That\\\'s why in objective polls only a few percentage points of the population are counted as atheists while in other polls they can juice the numbers up to 10%, 20% or more.
It\\\'s all fine and well, but you really have to figure out what you belive in, if anything, before you attach labels to yourself and others.
Someone who \\\"knows\\\" or \\\"believes\\\" that there is no God and no gods is definitely an atheist proper. Those who don\\\'t know are - literally - agnostic. Those who don\\\'t care are not merely atheistic, but aphilosophical or ametaphysical, and to claim to care about philosophical questions while not caring about the question of god is simply inconsistent or incoherent. \\\"Weak atheism\\\" is effectively agnosticism.
As a matter of pure semantics, many atheists are in fact agnostics as are many people that self-described atheists describe, in turn, as atheists. \\\"Implicit atheists\\\" is used but the more proper term is \\\"Inferred Atheists\\\" because babies and space aliens can\\\'t imply anything if they have no knowledge of the concept under consideration; observers infer it from their behaviour. Oddly, inferential reasoning is not much appreciated in some circles.
On a more practical level - more \\\"broadly\\\" speaking - the literal definition of atheism is not that instructive because, as pointed out, Buddhists and other religious groups meet that literal definition, but no reasonable person would describe them as atheists, nor would they describe themselves as such.
The reality is that most self-described atheists are metaphysical naturalists and by the definitions of their own world view, there can be no \\\"gods\\\".
Where the paradox and cognitive dissonance comes up is that \\\'\\\'procedural\\\'\\\' naturalism \\\'\\\'assumes\\\'\\\' that there is only the material world and only natural explanations for all observed phenomena. That is the basis of science, and it has worked out pretty good overall. The difference is that \\\'\\\'metaphysical\\\'\\\' naturalism is not merely an assumption, but a \\\'\\\'belief\\\'\\\' that science can explain everything; and consequently, anything not explained scientifically is either wrong or irrelevant.
The thing is, the existence of God is not a scientific proposition but rather a metaphysical proposition, the truth of which can neither be proved or disproved by imperical inquiry. Science has nothing to say on the existence of God, although a lack of scientific proof is what many atheists (Ricky Gervais recently) cite as their reason. That is not, strictly, logical.
Either you believe there is a god or you believe there is no god. If you have no belief, you are more properly an agnostic, not an atheist. Similarly, people who don\\\'t care are not atheists. Religious beliefs that do not include gods are not atheistic in any practical sense. It has been pointed out that atheism is not a religion, but then those people who obviously form a religion can\\\'t be called atheists.
That\\\'s why in objective polls only a few percentage points of the population are counted as atheists while in other polls they can juice the numbers up to 10%, 20% or more.
It\\\'s all fine and well, but you really have to figure out what you belive in, if anything, before you attach labels to yourself and others.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
A decent article but it runs into definitional problems within the first few paragraphs. Atheism, is \
to:
A decent article but it runs into definitional problems within the first few paragraphs. Atheism, is \\\"literally\\\" and not \\\"broadly\\\" defined as a lack of belief in gods. The catch phrase \\\"a lack of belief\\\" has its own bit of intellectual mischief as some people try to improperly blur the difference between the passive from the active, ambivalence and choice. Similarly, there is a difference between knowing, not knowing and not caring, but that is not given a balanced consideration.
Someone who \\\"knows\\\" or \\\"believes\\\" that there is no God and no gods is definitely an atheist proper. Those who don\\\'t know are - literally - agnostic. Those who don\\\'t care are not merely atheistic, but aphilosophical or ametaphysical, and to claim to care about philosophical questions while not caring about the question of god is simply inconsistent or incoherent. \\\"Weak atheism\\\" is effectively agnosticism.
As a matter of pure semantics, many atheists are in fact agnostics as are many people that self-described atheists describe, in turn, as atheists. \\\"Implicit atheists\\\" is used but the more proper term is \\\"Inferred Atheists\\\" because babies and space aliens can\\\'t imply anything if that have know knowledge of the concept under consideration; observers infer it from their behaviour. Oddly, inferential reasoning is not much appreciated in some circles.
On a more practical level - more \\\"broadly\\\" speaking - the literal definition of atheism is not that instructive because, as pointed out, Buddhists and other religious groups meet that literal definition, but no reasonable person would describe them as atheists, nor would they describe themselves as such.
The reality is that most self-described atheists are metaphysical naturalists and by the definitions of their own world view, there can be no \\\"gods\\\".
Where the paradox and cognitive dissonance comes up is that \\\'\\\'procedural\\\'\\\' naturalism \\\'\\\'assumes\\\'\\\' that there is only the material world and only natural explanations for all observed phenomena. That is the basis of science, and it has worked out pretty good overall. The difference is that \\\'\\\'metaphysical\\\'\\\' naturalism is not merely an assumption, but a \\\'\\\'belief\\\'\\\' that science can explain everything; and consequently, anything not explained scientifically is either wrong or irrelevant.
The thing is, the existence of God is not a scientific proposition but rather a metaphysical proposition, the truth of which can neither be proved or disproved by imperical inquiry. Science has nothing to say on the existence of God, although a lack of scientific proof is what many atheists (Ricky Gervais recently) cite as their reason. That is not, strictly, logical.
Either you believe there is a god or you believe there is no god. If you have no belief, you are more properly an agnostic, not an atheist. Similarly, people who don\\\'t care are not atheists. Religious beliefs that do not include gods are not atheistic in any practical sense. It has been pointed out that atheism is not a religion, but then those people who obviously form a religion can\\\'t be called atheists.
That\\\'s why in objective polls only a few percentage points of the population are counted as atheists while in other polls they can juice the numbers up to 10%, 20% or more.
It\\\'s all fine and well, but you really have to figure out what you belive in, if anything, before you attach labels to yourself and others.
Someone who \\\"knows\\\" or \\\"believes\\\" that there is no God and no gods is definitely an atheist proper. Those who don\\\'t know are - literally - agnostic. Those who don\\\'t care are not merely atheistic, but aphilosophical or ametaphysical, and to claim to care about philosophical questions while not caring about the question of god is simply inconsistent or incoherent. \\\"Weak atheism\\\" is effectively agnosticism.
As a matter of pure semantics, many atheists are in fact agnostics as are many people that self-described atheists describe, in turn, as atheists. \\\"Implicit atheists\\\" is used but the more proper term is \\\"Inferred Atheists\\\" because babies and space aliens can\\\'t imply anything if that have know knowledge of the concept under consideration; observers infer it from their behaviour. Oddly, inferential reasoning is not much appreciated in some circles.
On a more practical level - more \\\"broadly\\\" speaking - the literal definition of atheism is not that instructive because, as pointed out, Buddhists and other religious groups meet that literal definition, but no reasonable person would describe them as atheists, nor would they describe themselves as such.
The reality is that most self-described atheists are metaphysical naturalists and by the definitions of their own world view, there can be no \\\"gods\\\".
Where the paradox and cognitive dissonance comes up is that \\\'\\\'procedural\\\'\\\' naturalism \\\'\\\'assumes\\\'\\\' that there is only the material world and only natural explanations for all observed phenomena. That is the basis of science, and it has worked out pretty good overall. The difference is that \\\'\\\'metaphysical\\\'\\\' naturalism is not merely an assumption, but a \\\'\\\'belief\\\'\\\' that science can explain everything; and consequently, anything not explained scientifically is either wrong or irrelevant.
The thing is, the existence of God is not a scientific proposition but rather a metaphysical proposition, the truth of which can neither be proved or disproved by imperical inquiry. Science has nothing to say on the existence of God, although a lack of scientific proof is what many atheists (Ricky Gervais recently) cite as their reason. That is not, strictly, logical.
Either you believe there is a god or you believe there is no god. If you have no belief, you are more properly an agnostic, not an atheist. Similarly, people who don\\\'t care are not atheists. Religious beliefs that do not include gods are not atheistic in any practical sense. It has been pointed out that atheism is not a religion, but then those people who obviously form a religion can\\\'t be called atheists.
That\\\'s why in objective polls only a few percentage points of the population are counted as atheists while in other polls they can juice the numbers up to 10%, 20% or more.
It\\\'s all fine and well, but you really have to figure out what you belive in, if anything, before you attach labels to yourself and others.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
A decent article but it runs into definitional problems within the first few paragraphs. Atheism, is \
to:
A decent article but it runs into definitional problems within the first few paragraphs. Atheism, is \\\"literally\\\" and not \\\"broadly\\\" defined as a lack of belief in gods. The catch phrase \\\"a lack of belief\\\" has its own bit of intellectual mischief as some people try to improperly blur the difference between the passive from the active, ambivalence and choice. Similarly, there is a difference between knowing, not knowing and not caring, but that is not given a balanced consideration.
Someone who \\\"knows\\\" or \\\"believes\\\" that there is no God and no gods is definitely an atheist proper. Those who don\\\'t know are - literally - agnostic. Those who don\\\'t care are not merely atheistic, but aphilosophical or ametaphysical, and to claim to care about philosophical questions while not caring about the question of god is simply inconsistent or incoherent. \\\"Weak atheism\\\" is effectively agnosticism.
As a matter of pure semantics, many atheists are in fact agnostics as are many people that self-described atheists describe, in turn, as atheists. \\\"Implicit atheists\\\" is used but the more proper term is \\\"Inferred Atheists\\\" because babies and space aliens can\\\'t imply anything if that have know knowledge of the concept under consideration; observers infer it from their behaviour. Oddly, inferential reasoning is not much appreciated in some circles.
On a more practical level, the literal definition of atheism is not that instructive because - as pointed out - Buddhists and other religious groups meet that literal definition, but no reasonable person would describe them as atheists, nor would they describe themselves.
The reality is that most self-described atheists are metaphysical naturalists and by the definitions of their own world view, there can be no \\\"gods\\\".
Where the paradox and cognitive dissonance comes up is that \\\'\\\'procedural\\\'\\\' naturalism \\\'\\\'assumes\\\'\\\' that there is only the material world and only natural explanations for all observed phenomena. That is the basis of science, and it has worked out pretty good overall. The difference is that \\\'\\\'metaphysical\\\'\\\' naturalism is not merely an assumption, but a \\\'\\\'belief\\\'\\\' that science can explain everything; and consequently, anything not explained scientifically is either wrong or irrelevant.
The thing is, the existence of God is not a scientific proposition but rather a metaphysical proposition, the truth of which can neither be proved or disproved by imperical inquiry. Science has nothing to say on the existence of God, although a lack of scientific proof is what many atheists (Ricky Gervais recently) cite as their reason. That is not, strictly, logical.
Either you believe there is a god or you believe there is no god. If you have no belief, you are more properly an agnostic, not an atheist. Similarly, people who don\\\'t care are not atheists. Religious beliefs that do not include gods are not atheistic in any practical sense. It has been pointed out that atheism is not a religion, but then those people who obviously form a religion can\\\'t be called atheists.
That\\\'s why in objective polls only a few percentage points of the population are counted as atheists while in other polls they can juice the numbers up to 10%, 20% or more.
It\\\'s all fine and well, but you really have to figure out what you belive in, if anything, before you attach labels to yourself and others.
Someone who \\\"knows\\\" or \\\"believes\\\" that there is no God and no gods is definitely an atheist proper. Those who don\\\'t know are - literally - agnostic. Those who don\\\'t care are not merely atheistic, but aphilosophical or ametaphysical, and to claim to care about philosophical questions while not caring about the question of god is simply inconsistent or incoherent. \\\"Weak atheism\\\" is effectively agnosticism.
As a matter of pure semantics, many atheists are in fact agnostics as are many people that self-described atheists describe, in turn, as atheists. \\\"Implicit atheists\\\" is used but the more proper term is \\\"Inferred Atheists\\\" because babies and space aliens can\\\'t imply anything if that have know knowledge of the concept under consideration; observers infer it from their behaviour. Oddly, inferential reasoning is not much appreciated in some circles.
On a more practical level, the literal definition of atheism is not that instructive because - as pointed out - Buddhists and other religious groups meet that literal definition, but no reasonable person would describe them as atheists, nor would they describe themselves.
The reality is that most self-described atheists are metaphysical naturalists and by the definitions of their own world view, there can be no \\\"gods\\\".
Where the paradox and cognitive dissonance comes up is that \\\'\\\'procedural\\\'\\\' naturalism \\\'\\\'assumes\\\'\\\' that there is only the material world and only natural explanations for all observed phenomena. That is the basis of science, and it has worked out pretty good overall. The difference is that \\\'\\\'metaphysical\\\'\\\' naturalism is not merely an assumption, but a \\\'\\\'belief\\\'\\\' that science can explain everything; and consequently, anything not explained scientifically is either wrong or irrelevant.
The thing is, the existence of God is not a scientific proposition but rather a metaphysical proposition, the truth of which can neither be proved or disproved by imperical inquiry. Science has nothing to say on the existence of God, although a lack of scientific proof is what many atheists (Ricky Gervais recently) cite as their reason. That is not, strictly, logical.
Either you believe there is a god or you believe there is no god. If you have no belief, you are more properly an agnostic, not an atheist. Similarly, people who don\\\'t care are not atheists. Religious beliefs that do not include gods are not atheistic in any practical sense. It has been pointed out that atheism is not a religion, but then those people who obviously form a religion can\\\'t be called atheists.
That\\\'s why in objective polls only a few percentage points of the population are counted as atheists while in other polls they can juice the numbers up to 10%, 20% or more.
It\\\'s all fine and well, but you really have to figure out what you belive in, if anything, before you attach labels to yourself and others.
